Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

In any case, deterrence is not the only purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is-to punish.

Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

The child could be in any state you wish. I'll have to check with my friend who asked the question

Well we wouldn't want to limit the discipline-the question is proposed how it was in my class.

Does the praise encourage the child to repeat brickfacesmashing?
What does the child learn from being punished?

All punishment is is a negative renforcer. It reinforces that action to the child, but that is not to say leave it be. You must let the child know what he did was wrong, but allow him to know that its alright without being to easy on him/her. Its a very thin line between praise for an action, and letting an action be forgiven. You must moderate the punishment/praise ratio. In the end, if the lesson is to be learned, karma WILL come back and bite him in the butt.

---------- Post added 10-28-2009 at 06:01 PM ----------

jgweed;96195 wrote:

Doesn't our action (or reaction in this case) to the incident depend on the culpability of the child with the brick in his hand. Was this an accident, was it done in a fit of rage by a child with limited intelligence, and so on?

And why would we want to limit our disciplinary actions to either a hug/ or some harsh retribution if the results of our action is to prevent further bricks-in-the-faces-of-Others?

I'm sorry but I find your sense of humour amazing. Deffinately made me laugh, bricks-in-the-face-of-others. Just a side note.

To say punishment should be given because it is deserved is too obvious to require saying. But to say that punishment is not supposed to be productive, that punishment is not supposed to have utility, but that it must simply be deserved is quite another thing to say. If punishment is not given because it is productive, what other principle determines appropriate punishment.

To say punishment should be given because it is deserved is too obvious to require saying. But to say that punishment is not supposed to be productive, that punishment is not supposed to have utility, but that it must simply be deserved is quite another thing to say. If punishment is not given because it is productive, what other principle determines appropriate punishment.

You asked that before. And my reply is the same. That the punishment is deserved. And it may not be useful to give punishment. But the punishment can still be deserved, anyway. How can you both say that punishment should be given because it is deserved "is too obvious to require saying", and then say in the same breath that you do not know why punishment should be given because it is productive? You certainly do know why punishment should be given even if it is not productive. It is "too obvious to require saying". Even if not productive, the punishment should be given if deserved. You just said it yourself.

We cannot assume something should be deserved without knowing the specifics of the particular case, in my opinion. Many factors, as jgweed noted, play a role in the determination. If the child was mentally disabled and could not understand the concepts of right or wrong, I would not say the child deserved punishment. I, like DT, think that punishment should be issued if it can provide a learning experience (in this case, to not throw bricks at others). If punishment is issued to a child who will not be able to reap the learning experience that the punishment can provide, what is the point of issuing the punishment? It would seem if I issued a punishment to a child who couldn't, for whatever reason, understand the concepts of right or wrong, I would be issuing the punishment to satisfy myself, not to improve the child's character. This would be selfish and would only hurt the child further.

You're missing the point and mincing my words: of course a punishment should be given because the punishment is deserved. Yet, you deny that punishment is deserved because of a punishment's utility.

Okay: if not utility, what makes a punishment deserved? By what principle should we punish?

What has utility to do with desert? Obama did not deserve the prize, but it might be useful (by some lights) to give it to him. It might be useful to hang a person even if he did not do the crime to make an example of him. But he doesn't deserve to die, since he did not do the crime. A person deserves punishment if he did the crime. What does it matter whether it is useful to punish him?

It matters because if it is not useful, then the audience whom it was generated towards, the punishment, would actually encourage more people who deserve punishment. Someone who is hung jsut to make an example of is done so by, usually, cruel and inhuman governments whose purposes and leaders were selfish and sadistic, them themselves deserving of punishments, but unable to acquire the learning experience from the punishment. To punish for punishment's sake, is a act that actually devolves the human morality. It becomes an issue of whether the issuer of the punishment, is in fact stable mentally. [Not saying you are keenethamy.]

It matters because if it is not useful, then the audience whom it was generated towards, the punishment, would actually encourage more people who deserve punishment. Someone who is hung jsut to make an example of is done so by, usually, cruel and inhuman governments whose purposes and leaders were selfish and sadistic, them themselves deserving of punishments, but unable to acquire the learning experience from the punishment. To punish for punishment's sake, is a act that actually devolves the human morality. It becomes an issue of whether the issuer of the punishment, is in fact stable mentally. [Not saying you are keenethamy.]

I did not say it did not matter. I just pointed out tht utility and desert are very different. People don't deserve punishment or reward simply because it is useful to punish or reward them. Look at Obama's receipt of the Nobel prize.